C.T. Gillin, D. MacGregor, and T.R. Klassen (Eds.). Time's Up! Mandatory Retirement in Canada. Toronto: James Lorimer, 2005.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Cet ouvrage collectif propose une analyse du débat canadien sur l'abolition de la retraite obligatoire. À l'exception d'un chapitre, le livre propose une critique en règle de cette pratique, avec un accent sur le monde universitaire. Facile à lire et souvent intéressant, ce livre souffre de deux lacunes majeures. Premièrement, les discussions historiques et comparatives sont éparpillées dans plusieurs chapitres différents, ce qui complique la compréhension des grands enjeux du débat sur la retraite obligatoire. Deuxièmement, ce livre n'explique pas vraiment pourquoi deux des dix provinces canadiennes (le Québec et le Manitoba) ont aboli la retraite obligatoire alors que les huit autres n'ont fait qu'en restreindre l'application. Malgré ces deux lacunes, cet ouvrage collectif représente une contribution inégale mais significative au débat contemporain sur l'avenir de la retraite obligatoire au Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".